William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask, would it be possible to check that with the staff?

Mr. ROTH. I yield myself such time as I may take, and I will be very brief. It is my understanding that there are no requests for time on the minority side. Is that correct? Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask the distinguished ranking member whether or not his side is willing to yield all time?

Mr. ROTH. So I think both sides are willing to yield back----

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Under the unanimous consent agreement, following the vote, we were supposed to complete the debate on the health legislation and then proceed to the legislation on the minimum wage and small business taxes. We are anxious to move ahead on the small business tax legislation. What is necessary to get us on that?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we fulfill a promise to the American people. We bring greater security to American families. We offer peace of mind to hard-working, responsible men and women who are providing for themselves and for their families. There has been no question on either side of the aisle--or throughout America--about the need to make necessary improvements in our health care system. The improvements in this legislation primarily focus on making health care coverage accessible and affordable. It goes without saying that we have the highest quality of care, the best technology, the finest health care personnel found anywhere in the world. Our objective, then, is to initiate fundamental reforms in access to health care without doing irreversible harm to quality, research and technology. This legislation is an excellent first step toward accomplishing our objective. Unlike the health care reform effort made 2 years ago, this legislation does not harm the system in the process of reforming it. Rather, this legislation meets the most pressing needs associated with reform: Increased portability; limitations on pre-existing conditions exclusions; guaranteed renewability of health care insurance; and, improved means for small businesses and self-employed individuals to provide health care coverage, including long-term care. I want to particularly thank Senator McConnell for his leadership and active participation in these reforms, especially in the area of long- term care. Likewise, I want to acknowledge the work done by Senator Cohen toward preventing health care fraud and abuse. I want to thank Senator Grassley for the work he has done in the area of coordination and duplication of Medicare-related plans, and Senator Bond who has been instrumental in his work for administrative simplification. This has certainly been a team effort--a valiant effort by Senators and hard-working staff. I am proud of what we have accomplished. Beyond the critical reforms I have already outlined, this legislation also takes a very important first step toward a program that I have long advocated--that is the medical savings account. Medical savings accounts provide a fundamental way to make health insurance affordable to small business employees and self-employed individuals, and this bill provides for a 4-year demonstration project--a project in which self-employed individuals and companies of 50 or fewer can participate. Mr. firm belief is that this project will prove the success of medical savings accounts, and we will then be in a strong position to provide MSA's for Americans everywhere. Beyond these important reforms, this legislation also helps control the cost associated with health care by creating new tools in our fight against health care fraud and abuse. While I would like to see our efforts to control fraud and abuse go much further, the provisions in this bill represent a good starting point. Along with providing these tools, this legislation improves the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the private health care system through uniform standards that will cut out much of the redtape in health care. It is important to note, Mr. President, that this bill does not pre- empt State privacy laws. Instead, it provides protection for an individual's health information. Each of these changes represents a significant improvement over current law. Combined they represent a strong first step toward reforming America's health care delivery system in a way that improves without destroying. And this is critically important to the American people. Two years ago they rejected the wholesale restructuring of our health care system. They understood that reform, as it was proposed then, was throwing the baby out with the bath water. It was tampering dangerously with one-eighth of our Nation's economy, and a system that had the highest standards of quality in the world. What we do with this legislation is make the reforms they want--the reforms they need-- without destroying all that is good and working in the current system. With this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, we keep our promise. We effectively address the problems facing the Nation's health care system in an incremental fashion. I am honored to be a part of this momentous effort--I appreciate all the work that's been done by valiant staff members--and I am heartened by the positive, bipartisan way in which we have succeeded. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. The conference committee's intent regarding this change was to ensure that there be no delay in the mailing of refund checks because of this provision. The language ``to the extent practicable'' originally read ``to the maximum extent practicable'' to address any potential administrative issues that may arise. For example, if the Internal Revenue Service ran out of organ donor cards we would not want to insinuate that the check could only go out if a donor card was enclosed. The Treasury Department specifically asked us to delete ``maximum'' from the language. It was not the conference committee's belief that this provision should cause a delay, and we fully expect that the Treasury Department will make every effort to ensure that all of the individual taxpayers who are mailed refunds in 1997 will also receive organ donation information.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Ten minutes.

Mr. ROTH. First of all, let me thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his gracious remarks about me and my staff. I just point out that we would not have been able to complete the reconciliation within a week if it had not been for his leadership, for the assistance and help that he provided at any time when it became necessary in the difficult negotiations that had to take place. I want to publicly thank the Senator for his contribution. Mr. President, this day is a remarkable turning point in the lives of millions of American families and generations to come. This is the day we will reorder our confused and confounding system of welfare. A world spinning out of control will be brought back into proper course. It will return to order not through the power of Washington but through personal responsibility and work opportunity, the very title of this important legislation. I say to my distinguished friend from New Jersey that what we seek to do here is to provide the same kind of opportunity that was given to him, through help to go to college, but particularly as he tried to help that lady into the mainstream of life by giving her meaningful work. I think that is what we are all seeking to do together. Mr. President, this is the third time welfare reform will have passed in the 104th Congress. The issue of welfare reform has been frequently and passionately debated over these past months, and rightly so. The effects and consequences of the welfare system in some way touches us all. During this time, the Finance Committee has held 19 hearings and taken testimony from 90 witnesses. We have found that the current AFDC program, as it was designed in the 1930's, abandoned many families long ago as a statistic of long-term dependency in contemporary society. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today. I think that is a point well worth underscoring because the fact is, as the record shows, that this current system has not been good for children. For anyone who believes that it has, I recommend you read the findings section of this legislation. I have yet to hear anyone defend the present system as good for children. I point out that in 1965 there were 3.3 million children on AFDC; by 1992, that had risen to over 9 million children. In 1992, 9 million children were on welfare, AFDC, despite the fact that the total number of children in this country has declined. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated if we do nothing, 12 million will be on AFDC in 10 years. I reemphasize once again that the present system is not good for children. But the record clearly demonstrates the contrary--that instead of being good, we find more and more children being trapped in a system and into dependency on welfare. As I said, to do nothing is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work. The current welfare system has cheated the children of what they need most--among these is hope, the necessary condition of liberation from dependency. The key to their success will not be found in Washington but in the timeless values of family and work. Opponents of welfare believe that the States lack either the compassion or the capacity, or both, to serve needy families. They are wrong. We promised welfare reform and we have kept our promise. Our legislation is built upon the original principles from which we have never waivered. This is a bipartisan bill. Half of the Senate Democratic Members who served on the conference voted for the bill when it passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin. Yesterday, this conference report passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 328 to 101. Half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted for this bill. I believe that demonstrates the bipartisan spirit upon which we have approached welfare reform. A number of people deserve our thanks and credit for giving us this opportunity today. First, let me give credit and thanks to Senator Bob Dole, our former majority leader. Even after welfare reform had been vetoed twice, Bob Dole insisted that we could and should remain steadfast in our fundamental principles and achieve welfare reform. Bob Dole introduced a welfare bill before he left the Senate which was, frankly, the benchmark of our conference report before us. His last advice to me was to make sure this job gets done this year. I have to say, Mr. President, today's action reflects his work, reflects his vision, reflects his leadership. Our Nation's Governors, most especially the lead Governors on welfare and Medicaid reform, people like John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Mike Leavitt, Tom Carper, Bob Miller, Lawton Chiles, and Roy Romer deserve our thanks and credit for their work to make welfare reform a reality. I look forward to working with them again to face the challenge of Medicaid reform. Even though Senator Moynihan does not support our legislation, I want to thank him for his work and insights into this extremely complex world of welfare. Perhaps no one has done more over the past three decades than Senator Moynihan to bring the alarming growth in welfare to the Nation's attention. President Clinton has announced his support for this hard-won conference report and he is to be congratulated for that decision. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, while the present welfare system is full of excuses, the welfare reform legislation being presented to the American people today is indeed a bold challenge. And while the present system quietly accepts the dependency of more than 9 million children, our proposal speaks loudly to them and insists that they, too, must be among the heirs to the blessings of this great Nation. Welfare reform is about helping families find the freedom and independence we take so much for granted. Mr. President, this legislation clearly points the way to that independence. But the road to independence does not begin or end in Washington. Independence begins with living up to one's responsibilities. This is echoed through the legislation with the provisions on work, time- limited benefits, limits on benefits for noncitizens, and strong child support enforcement reforms. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the conference report. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. First, let me address the good news. Yes, the good news that we received this morning from the Commerce Department is that the GDP for the second quarter of this year is a strong 4.2 percent. This is up from the anemic growth rate of 0.3 percent in the last quarter 1995, and the first quarter 1996 growth rate of 2 percent. However, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the average growth rate since 1990 is a weak 1.9 percent. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Let me refer my colleagues to a Business Week cover story in their July 8, 1996, edition. The cover reads ``Economic Growth--Don't be fooled by today's strong statistics. And don't be suckered by the political rhetoric. America needs faster growth.'' While the Business Week feature story goes on to outline their proposals for stronger growth, they highlight critical issues that we must address; namely, increasing savings and investment, balancing the budget, and reforming the Tax Code. Mr. President, it is the Republicans in Congress who have addressed these issues and will continue to fight for real tax reform in the coming years. Also, a few weeks ago the Office of Management and Budget's new estimates of the deficit for fiscal year 1996 is $117 billion, down from the $211 billion target that Bill Clinton called for in his budget. The deficit is down because a Republican Congress forced the President to control spending. Despite five Presidential vetoes-- remember those vetoes--congressional Republicans successfully managed to rescind nearly $40 billion in domestic discretionary spending from this administration's top-heavy budget. This represents a good start, but it is only a start. Had Bill Clinton not been so wild with the veto pen--had he not vetoed the balanced budget amendment--we'd be even farther down the road. The deficit reduction we're celebrating is for the short term. Long-term trends show increasing deficits. They show an upward trend, and Congress--along with the President--have a responsibility to reverse deficit growth. Toward this end, our objective must go beyond controlling the spending side of the equation. Excessive taxation is as dangerous to the welfare of American families as is excessive spending, perhaps even more so. These dangerous trends must be reversed. We are moving in the right direction to control Federal spending, now we must also push for tax reform to strengthen the economy. Make no mistake about my feelings on this debate. I'm on record as a proponent of meaningful tax cuts, and this will be the direction I intend to move. Holding the line on spending and stimulating optimal economic growth through responsible tax reform are the only ways that we will effectively find the resources and means necessary to meet the challenges and the enjoy the opportunities the future has to offer. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kyl.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in these last few minutes before we put August 1, 1996, into the history books as the day we end the welfare system as we know it, I will close with a few observations and some important acknowledgments. Last February, after welfare reform had been vetoed twice, the Nation's Governors restarted today's legislation by reaching a unanimous agreement to reform welfare. Gov. John Engler of Michigan testified before the Finance Committee later that month and put this entire debate into its proper perspective. He said: Just consider the Washington Post headline describing what the governors' policy--adopted unanimously with the support of our most conservative and most liberal governor and everybody in between--meant. The Post headline read, ``Governors reform plan would break with 60 years of policy.'' Governor Engler went on to say: Remember what the governors propose is changing a law that has been the basis of federal policy for 60 years and remember how counterproductive these policies have been. They punish parents who work too much. They punish mothers and fathers that want to stay together. They punish working families who save money. They reward teenagers who have babies out of wedlock, and the list is longer. Mr. President, this 60-year-old welfare system rewards the behavior which leads to poverty and punishes the behavior which leads out of poverty. Yes, it is time to end this system. Mr. President, this legislation is about personal responsibility and work opportunity. Work is not only about earning our daily bread. Work is an integral part of the human condition. A parent's work also teaches the values necessary to prepare the next generation for its responsibilities. We can all be proud of our work today because it will make a profound difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It will go down as one of the most important legislative achievements not only in this Congress, but in many, many years. This is a historic week for a historic Congress. In a matter of weeks, we have moved from gridlock to winning gold medals. Welfare reform is certainly one of our gold medal achievements. I end by again thanking Senator Domenici for his leadership in orchestrating this legislation through the process. I want to extend my thanks to the Finance Committee conferees, Senator Chafee, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and Senator Simpson for their extraordinary assistance and cooperation. The contributions of Senator Nickles, Senator Gramm, and Senator Santorum as we moved through the conference cannot be overstated. They played key roles in assuring this legislation would meet all of our objectives, especially with respect to tough work requirements. Let me compliment the majority leader, Senator Lott, getting this conference report completed. This is a major accomplishment in the brief time of his leadership position. Our former majority leader and colleague, Bob Dole deserves as much credit for this legislation as anyone. When the tough decisions needed to be made, and there were plenty through this process, he demonstrated the leadership we all look to. I extend my congratulations and thanks to those Members in the House of Representatives who have worked so hard on this issue. It was a privilege to work with Chairmen Bill Archer, Clay Shaw, Bill Goodling, and Tom Bliley over these months. I extend the thanks of everyone to both the majority and minority staffs of the leadership, the Finance Committee, especially Lindy Paull, Frank Polk, Ginny Koops, and Dennis Smith, the Budget Committee, and the Agriculture Committee, for their work. There are too many to name individually and I would not want to fail to mention anyone. I do thank each of them. I also extend those same thanks to the respective staffs in the House, most especially to Ron Haskins, Matt Weidinger, Cassie Bevin, and Margaret Pratt at the Committee on Ways and Means. We should remember that until a few weeks ago, Medicaid was included in this package, so the staffs at Finance and the House Commerce Committee who worked on Medicaid should be recognized, especially Susan Dull, the First Heinz Fellow working in Congress. Of course, the committee work cannot be done without the help of those staff members at Legislative Counsels in both the Senate and House, especially Ruth Ernst, and Mark Mathiesen. I extend our thanks to those at the Congressional Budget Office, especially Jean Hearne, Robin Rudowitz, Sheila Dacy, Justin Lattice, and Kathy Ruffin; the Congressional Research Service, most especially, Vee Burke, Gene Falk, and Melvina Ford; and the General Accounting Office, especially, Greg Dybalski and Jerry Fastrup. Let me mention something else that is historical about this day which has been overlooked. I know of no other time in which congressional and State officials and staffs have worked so closely together on an issue. For months, Governors John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Leavitt have given so generously of their time, support, and the power of ideas. They truly deserve the thanks of the American people. They have donated the talent and expertise of their staffs, especially LeAnne Redick, Kathy Tobin, who also worked on this legislation as a staff member of the Finance Committee, Joanne Neumann and Mary Kay Mantho. Mr. President, this will indeed be a day to remember. Thank you and congratulations to all the Republicans in the House and Senate who stuck to our principles and stuck together to make this a reality. Together we have made a difference.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill includes my amendment that increase funding for renewable energy programs. My amendment restore $23 million to solar and wind energy programs, bringing funding to these programs up to last year's levels. Mr. President, renewable energy technologies represent our best hopes for reducing air pollution, creating jobs and decreasing our reliance on imported oil and finite supplies of fossil fuels. These programs promise to supply economically competitive and commercially viable energy, while also assisting our Nation in reducing greenhouse gases and oil imports. I believe that the Nation should be looking toward alternative forms and sources of energy, not taking a step backward by cutting funding for these programs. My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first photovoltaic laboratories in the Nation. The University has been instrumental in developing solar photovoltaic energy, the same type of energy that powers solar watches and calculators. Delaware has a major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, which is now the fastest growing manufacturer of photovoltaic cells in the world. In collaboration with the University of Delaware and Astro Power, Delaware's major utility--Delmarva Power & Light--has installed an innovative solar energy system that has successfully demonstrated the use of solar power to satisfy peak electrical demand. Through this collaboration, my State has demonstrated that solar energy technology can be an economically competitive and commercially viable energy alternative for the utility industry. It is vital that we continue to manufacture these solar cell products with the high performance, high quality, and low costs required to successfully compete worldwide. Investment in Department of Energy solar and renewable energy programs has put us on the threshold of explosive growth. Continuation of the present renewable energy programs is required to achieve the goal of a healthy photovoltaic industry in the United States. While the solar energy industries might have evolved in some form on their own, the Federal investment has accelerated the transition from the laboratory bench to commercial markets in a way that has already accrued valuable economic benefits to the Nation. The solar energy industries--like Astro Power--have already created thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade deficit through exports of solar energy systems overseas, mostly to developing nations, where 2 billion people are still without access to electricity. International markets for solar energy systems are virtually exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems. The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership with their own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and Germany held the lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the United States has only recently recaptured international market dominance. Cutting funding for commercializing these technologies would have a chilling effect on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an international scale in these billion-dollar markets of today and tomorrow. The employment potential of renewables represents a minimum of 15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade. It is imperative that this Senate support solar and renewable energy technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My State has done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and reliable energy future by supporting this amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator McCain's amendment that would cut capital funding for Amtrak. This funding cut will cripple the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program and threaten the viability of passenger rail in this country. It is my understanding that if the Senate votes in favor of these cuts, it will have far- reaching effects nationwide. The reduction in capital could mean the termination of the High Speed Rail Program that has the potential to revive passenger rail as an important component of our national transportation system. It will also impair Amtrak's heavy overhaul and maintenance capabilities--much of which is done in Delaware's Amtrak shops. Shortchanging maintenance will contribute to further decline of rolling stock and locomotives, reducing the quality of service, and discouraging potential passengers from choosing Amtrak. This is a formula for failure, not a plan to make Amtrak self- sufficient or to secure the place of passenger in our country's transportation system. Mr. President, we are all working toward an Amtrak which operates without a Federal operating subsidy, which provides quality service, and which is financially stable. Amtrak now covers approximately 80 percent of its operating costs with self-generated revenue, up from 48 percent in 1981. Yet we also know that no intercity rail passenger service anywhere in the world operates without some degree of public sector financial support. Investment in all modes of transportation is important, but we have gone about it in a lopsided way. Purchasing power for Federal highway programs has increased by 48 percent from 1982 to 1996. It has increased 78 percent for aviation, but has decreased 46 percent for passenger rail. In fact, Amtrak currently receives less than 3 percent of all Federal transportation spending. To attain balance, we must balance our financial support to all transportation components, including passenger rail service. Capital funding is necessary for Amtrak's future. New capital investments will allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. With new equipment, Amtrak will attract substantial new ridership with increased revenues. It currently costs Amtrak $60 million per year to operate and maintain its old equipment, which frequently breaks down and often requires parts to be specially made. As many Members in the Senate are aware, I am working to provide a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. The Senate has overwhelmingly supported my legislation that would give Amtrak one-half cent for capital expenditures. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to pass this legislation into law. However, I will continue to work hard and make these speeches until this legislation is passed. Amtrak cannot survive without capital funding. If we do not provide funding for Amtrak, we will have no other option but to watch Amtrak collapse. This amendment does not move us in the right direction. If this Congress wants a national passenger rail system, it will continue to vote for capital funding for Amtrak. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein to submit a resolution expressing concerns about a series of disturbing developments in Cambodia. Recently, the Senate Finance Committee reported out H.R. 1642 to extend permanent most-favored nation tariff treatment to Cambodia. Yesterday, the full Senate passed this legislation by voice vote. When the Finance Committee marked up H.R. 1642, the committee's members made clear their serious concerns about increasing acts of repression by the Royal Government of Cambodia [RGC]. They also registered their concerns about growing corruption at the highest levels of the civilian and military administration, increasing drug trafficking, and substantial environmental degradation. In reporting out the bill, the committee made it clear that it was doing so, in part, because it believes normal trade relations with Cambodia could serve to improve Cambodia's behavior. The resolution we are submitting today is meant to send a parallel message--that the United States Senate remains deeply concerned about problems in Cambodia, and will continue to follow events in that country closely. Since 1991 the international community has contributed almost $2 billion to peacekeeping and national reconstruction in Cambodia. Multilateral aid also provides over 40 percent of the Royal Government of Cambodia's annual budget. American taxpayers contribute a major portion of these sums. While the United Nations-sponsored election of 1993 brought a brief period of freedom and democratic improvement to Cambodia, recent developments on a variety of fronts suggests that Cambodia's future remains precarious at best. For instance, Prince Norodom Sirivudh, former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister was arrested by the current government under trumped up charges of fomenting a plot to assassinate the Second Prime Minister, Hun Se. After a summary trial without proper defense, Prince Sirivudh was found guilty by Hun Sen-appointed judges and was sent into exile in France. Another prominent opposition leader, Former Finance Minister Sam Rainsy was expelled from the coalition Funcinpec Party and the National Assembly for having criticized the RGC for its lack of transparency in its business deals with foreign firms. Since his expulsion, several members of his party have been murdered. A number of members of another opposition party, the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party of Cambodia, headed by former Prime Minister Sonn San, died as a result of a grenade attack during that party's national convention. In addition, a number of editors and reporters from opposition newspapers have been assassinated. Currently, none of these assassination cases have been solved. Corruption in Phnom Penh is rampant and Cambodia has emerged as a major heroin trafficking center in Asia. Finally, in contravention to the Cambodian Constitution, the RGC has permitted deforestation and timber exploitation on such a massive scale that the agricultural livelihoods of enormous numbers of Cambodians are now threatened. The resolution I am submitting registers the concerns I know we all share in the Senate on these disturbing trends in the Cambodian economy, government and environment. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol [RBP] and the patrol's 75-year perfect safety record. Every summer, Rehoboth Beach, DE, is inundated with tens of thousands of vacationers from Delaware, Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and Pennsylvania. And every summer, the lifeguards of RBP reunite over 400 lost children with their parents, treat hundreds of injuries, and save scores of swimmers. All too often, with people too busy at work, or in this case, too busy at play, years of work, dedication, and perfection go overlooked. It is only fitting and proper that RBP be recognized after so many perfect years of service. With the leadership of Capt. Paul ``Doc'' Burnham in the 1940's, through the firm discipline of Capt. Frank ``Coach'' Coveleski in the 1950's through the 1970's, to current Capt. Jate Walsh, the swimmers of Rehoboth beach have been, and continue to be, guarded by the best Delaware has to offer. As for the future, Lieutenants Tom Coveleski and Derek Shockro strive to continue our great Delaware tradition into the next century. On behalf of my fellow Delawareans, and the literally hundreds of thousands of vacationers that have enjoyed the safe beaches of Rehoboth for so many years, I say thank you. And best of luck to Rehoboth Beach Patrol, as it works on another 75 years of perfect service.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have long supported NATO, and the extension of membership in this transatlantic institution to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. And today I wish to express my support for the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996--extremely important legislation which I also cosponsor. This bill is designed specifically to support and foster the careful, gradual extension of NATO membership to the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Once passed, this bill will direct tangible assistance to the efforts of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to join the Alliance. These nations are the best prepared in their region for the responsibilities and burdens of NATO membership. Let me also emphasize that it is the intent of the authors of this bill to ensure that the entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the Alliance is part of an inclusive and on-going process of NATO enlargement. NATO enlargement does not have to, and should not be allowed to, create any new divisions in Europe. Hence, our bill explicitly states that the United States should continue and expand upon its support for full and active participation of all Central and Eastern European countries in activities appropriate for qualifying for NATO membership. This legislation clearly outlines a vision of NATO enlargement, an on-going process that will reach out to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe as they become capable of making a net contribution to the Alliance's overall interests, capabilities, and security. Extending the Alliance's membership to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, will help transform Central and Eastern Europe into a cornerstone of enduring peace and stability in post-cold war Europe. NATO enlargement is in America's interests for many reasons. Principal among these include the following: First, it is absolutely necessary to consolidate and secure an enduring and stable peace in Europe. This is a continent where America has vital interests and it is a continent that, historically speaking, has been besieged by violent and brutal wars. NATO enlargement will project security into a region that has long suffered as a security vacuum in European affairs. History has repeatedly shown us that the strategic vulnerability of Central and Eastern Europe has produced catastrophic consequences--consequences that drew the United States twice this century into world war. The most effective way to address this security vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe is by integrating these nations into NATO and the other institutions that constitute the transatlantic community of nations. Second, NATO enlargement will help facilitate this integration, both politically and economically. NATO enlargement is a key step to extending to the entire continent of Europe the zone of peace, democracy, and prosperity that now includes North America and Western Europe. Passage of our NATO enlargement legislation will demonstrate America's commitment to consolidating an enlarged Europe. This will give more incentive to all the nations of the region to continue their political and economic reforms by demonstrating that these reforms do result in tangible geo-political gains. By projecting and reinforcing stability in Central and Eastern Europe, NATO enlargement will consolidate the context necessary for this region's nations to focus on internal political and economic reform. Mr. President, security is not an alternative to reform, but it is essential for reform to occur. Third, two great powers, Germany and Russia, are now undergoing very complex and sensitive transformations. Their futures will be significantly shaped by the future of Central and Eastern Europe. Extending NATO membership to nations of this region will reinforce the positive evolutions of these two great powers. In the case of Germany, NATO enlargement will further lock German interests into a transatlantic security structure and thereby further consolidate the extremely positive role Bonn now plays in European affairs. The extension of NATO membership to Central and East European nations will also be of great benefit to Russia. By enhancing and reinforcing stability and peace in Central and Eastern Europe, NATO enlargement will make unrealistic the calls by Russia's extremists for the revitalization of the former Soviet Union or the Westward expansion of Russian hegemony. Greater stability along Russia frontiers will also enable Moscow to direct more of its energy toward the internal challenges of political and economic reform. This point is too often forgotten in this debate. There has been too strong a tendency in US policy to overreact to outdated Russian sensitivities. This overreaction comes at the expense of strategic realities and objectives central to the interests of the Alliance, as well as to the United States. Let me add, Mr. President, that Russian opposition to NATO enlargement is withering and appears to be in the process of being replaced by a more enlightened understanding of the motivations behind NATO enlargement. I would like my colleagues to note an interview in today's Financial Times with General Alexander Lebed, who declared that Russia does not oppose NATO enlargement. Lebed was recently appointed by Russian President Yeltsin as Secretary of Russia's National Security Council. Lebed also finished third in the first round of the Russian presidential elections. Thus, his statement reflects positively on both the attitudes of the Russian public and official Russian policy toward NATO enlargement. Mr. President, I would also like to note that this NATO enlargement legislation reflects the attitudes of many of our parliamentary counterparts in Europe. The North Atlantic Assembly, a gathering of legislators from the sixteen nations of NATO, adopted at the end of 1994, my resolution calling for the extension of membership in the Alliance to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Mr. President, America's defense and security must be structured to shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and military stability all across Europe. Careful and gradual extension of NATO membership to nations of Central and Eastern Europe is a critical step toward this end. This is in our national interest. It is action long overdue, and it is the intent of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996. For these reasons, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate, as well as President Clinton and his Administration, to embrace this legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, the Senate's unanimous vote in favor of the Murkowski amendment demonstrates once again the serious concerns Members of this body have about the lack of action by the Japanese Ministry of Finance to implement its obligations under the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. The Senate fully expects Japan to live up to its agreements. The Ministry of Finance's behavior on this issue is particularly unfortunate because it undermines the credibility of the Government of Japan. Congress has a responsibility to ensure trade agreements are honored, and to act when they are not.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is my understanding. reconciliation, the deficit and senate procedure

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Ford amendment as it would seriously undermine the real 5-year time limit on welfare assistance. One of the most important features of welfare reform is that recipients must understand that public assistance is temporary, not a way of life. Let us be straight about this. These benefits would go to the entire family under the Ford amendment. If you are going to give vouchers for housing, the whole family benefits. If you are giving any type of assistance, it benefits the whole family. There is no distinction between the child and the rest of the family. Under the bill, even after the 5-year time limit, families and children would still be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, and dozens more means-tested programs. Over 5 years, a typical welfare family receives more than $50,000 in tax-free benefits. Five years is enough time to finish a high school degree or learn a skill through vocational training. It is enough for a welfare family to change course.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment would delay Medicaid restrictions on noncitizens for 2 years. In effect, the Kennedy amendment says we need welfare reform but not quite yet. That is not good enough for those who bear the cost of these programs. Let us not lose sight of this debate. These welfare programs were not designed to serve noncitizens. The restrictions that we have placed on noncitizens have broad bipartisan support. This is no time to turn our backs on reform. The Kennedy amendment would result in a loss of substantial savings in the bill. So I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy amendment and uphold the budget point of order against it.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, S. 1956 is a good package, and just as this Congress has begun to reverse 30 years of liberal-spending policies, this welfare reform proposal reverses 30 years of social policy. Mr. President, 30 years of welfare policy has demonstrated that Government cannot promote policies that divide families and expect healthy children; Government cannot centralize power and expect strong communities; Government cannot challenge and undermine religion and then expect an abundance of faith, hope, and charity. This reform initiative is largely based on the proposals made by our Nation's Governors, and it mirrors the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995. Remember, Mr. President, that act was reported out of the Finance Committee and passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12 before being vetoed by Bill Clinton. This legislation is much the same. While it doesn't have everything it should--while it does not, for example, contain any provision to reform Medicaid--it represents a good start. There have been compromises, Mr. President. Welfare reform is so important to the American people that they have let us know that there should be compromise, if that's what it takes. This legislation, I believe, represents a good compromise. It contains real work requirements. It contains real time limits. It cancels welfare benefits for felons and noncitizens. It returns the power to the States and communities, and it encourages personal responsibility toward combating illegitimacy. Mr. President, this welfare reform proposal is the first step in a necessary effort to bring compassion and sensibility to a process that has gotten out of hand. It benefits children by breaking the back of Government dependency; it requires sincere effort on the part of their parents--effort that will restore respect, pride, and economic security within the home--effort that will lay a new foundation for future generations. Our current failed system has not done this. Prof. Walter Williams shows how the money spent on poverty programs since the 1960's could have bought the entire assets of the Fortune 500 companies and virtually all U.S. farm land. Consider that again--all the assets of the Fortune 500 companies and virtually all U.S. farm land. With all this, where are we? Welfare rolls are at record highs, problems are mounting and the attendant consequences are worse than ever. Our reform legislation ends this destructive cycle. It replaces the hopelessness of the current system that engenders dependency with the hope that comes from self-reliance. Thirty years is long enough. The safety net has become a snare. Freedom for the families trapped in dependency comes only through responsibility--through personal accountability--and that is the step we take today with this legislation. I appreciate all who have worked on both sides of aisle to bring us to this point. We have established a reform proposal that the President should be able to sign. I ask him to make good on his promise. Mr. president, please take this first, important step toward ending welfare as we know it.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Kennedy amendment. It would seriously erode fundamental welfare reform as it relates to noncitizens. The amendment does not just apply to children who are already here. The exemption applies to those who will come to the United States in the future, as well. The bill provides for a 5-year ban on Federal means-tested benefits, including cash, medical assistance, housing, food assistance, and social services. The Kennedy amendment creates a new exception to all these benefits to aliens under age 18. It is the taxpayer, not the families and sponsors of the children, who will assume the responsibility for their needs. This is the wrong signal to send to those who would come here for opportunity, not a handout, and for the families here who pay for those benefits. The Kennedy amendment would result in a loss of substantial savings in the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy amendment and uphold the budget point of order against it.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I point out that what we have before us is the Chafee perfecting amendment. This perfecting amendment only makes a technical change in the basic Chafee amendment. I have no objection to that technical amendment. In fact, I would have been willing to accept the perfecting amendment on a voice vote. But, since he has gotten the yeas and nays, I urge everybody to vote aye on the technical change.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure continued Medicaid coverage to all individuals currently receiving Medicaid benefits because of their eligibility through the current AFDC benefits. This will ensure that no child or adult currently receiving Medicaid benefits would lose coverage because of welfare reform. My amendment also provides for 1 year of transitional Medicaid benefits. This guarantees that families leaving welfare will continue to receive Medicaid coverage for a full year to help in the critical transition from welfare to work. The problem with the Chafee-Breaux amendment is that it would force the States to maintain current eligibility standards indefinitely into the future. That means that someone, 5 or 10 years from now, may not qualify under a State's new welfare program but nevertheless would claim eligibility under the old program. This creates serious issues of equity. The Governors are deeply concerned about the Chafee-Breaux approach, as it would be burdensome to administer. I urge the adoption of the Roth amendment.